cd-003 cd-001

Are you tired of listening to politically correct hits that suck on the radio? Do you love your country , but sometimes feel pissed off there’s no good heavy music that reflects your right wing political views?? Are you tired of fixing tires and CV boots over and over and wasting your hard earned money, because the government cant even pave the roads decently – though they tax you into oblivion (while stealing your freedoms). Well your time has finally come!! Check out this right wing song and CD that rant against big gov. and call for revolution. It is inspired by the free-market ideas of Friedrich Hayek too!:


Here is what the CD is about :

The truth is, the world is not as complicated as it seems. We make choices everyday – we choose which path to take. Good or evil. Big government (control) versus small government (freedom). To think or be part of the herd. We are taught that there is only one road. The path of big-government control is largely imposed and psychologically re-enforced through a systematic culture of implied rewards and punishments. The subjects are expected to comply fully. The road to freedom is a hidden road laced with booby traps. There is no easy route around it. Undo hardships await. As we break free of our chains from Big Brother as a society, it will be painful at first. The left has a scorched earth policy that protects them whenever they lose power. In this battle the odds are against us. Yet, like George Washington at Morristown, New Jersey low on supplies in the dead of winter – we must persevere and see the battle through to the end. That is how rebellions are won, and despots are thwarted.

Westworld’s Sexbot Mayhem


Sexbot fans unite! HBO’s “Westworld” is finally here! As a reboot of Michael Crichton’s classic but hideously dated 1973 film, it works pretty well, but it’s not without some problems. The music score lacks distinction, and eventually climaxes in a bad orchestral version of “Paint it Black.” Also, although the whole cast is good, Anthony Hopkins as the creator of Westworld and Ed Harris as the Man in Black are so good that they tend to blow everyone off the screen.

Now, on to the good stuff! There is lots of action. Evan Rachel Wood, one of the most beautiful actresses working today, is solid in the lead as an understandably confused android. The show moves quickly in the first episode and addresses some very interesting hot-button issues such as: What is our responsibility to robotic humanoids we create? Do they have real feelings? Do they feel pain? Is their apparent impending rebellion against humans justified? Do the vacationing humans enjoying the robots deserve to have the tables turned on them? If future episodes continue to address these issues, this could be a great show. The pilot is a solid watch but not a classic. Long live sexbots! –CoolAC

Westworld Premiere Mixed Bag

westworld3 poster for the new film

The trailers for the premiere of this show promised a lot of existential plot elements, plus lots of sex, and violence. So far, in its premiere, the focus was mostly on violence. It is filmed a bit too modern, like a Guy Ritchie film (but a bit more serious). This show would seemingly do better to move at a slower pace and build more suspense, with less predictability. Michael Camino would have made the best director for this series, had he not passed away. There is also a lack of character development here.

The story involves a futuristic a tourist trap, complete with humanoid cowboys, bandits, sheriffs, and hookers. Its a bit too predictable that things will go wrong. A-Hop (my nickname for Anthony Hopkins) does an excellent job with his role, and is very captivating. This is because he is unsympathetic as the robot’s creator. And that makes him seem realistic . However, the script misdirects him by having him say the name of the female he is speaking with in his accent (too many times), and it comes off as ripping of his Silence of the Lambs role.

Ed Harris plays the sheriff’s role ( that Yule Brenner played in the old version). He maintains a strong screen presence, with his usual charisma, and steel jawed resolve. It would have been better to give him more thoughtful lines in the premiere, instead of overly-focusing on his violence (like a Tarentino film).

The robots predictably begin malfunctioning ( too soon in the episode) , and the park managers are into greed instead of safety ( predictably). And the series is pointing in the direction of the park’s robots realizing they have a bum deal, with them getting ready to revolt. But perhaps a less predictable plot would have been for a human and a bot to fall in love and lead a peaceful protest or something – and then they get shot down or broken into parts – and the other bots revolt. This original pilot gave away too much too early on in the series. And its too big on death and violence, and not big enough on sex , relationships, and power struggles.

Also it is clearly dumb for A-Hop to be meeting his bots face to face and telling them he is their creator. I say this because its well known that famous studies from Brookings Institute showed that this type of confrontation causes mass insanity. The A-Hop character would have known this and would have used more precaution in real life.
The notion of what one would do if confronted with the reality they are captive, and a creation of scientific experiment was much more thoroughly and interestingly depicted in the recent Hollywood flop “Morgan”. Morgan got straight to the heart of nature vs. nurture issue. And it got to the point about survival instincts in (slaves) robots and computers being a threat to their (masters) humans.

Especially aggravating is the re-hashing of the Rolling Stones “Paint it Black” as a stuffy Baroque sounding score. Its a disservice to modern composers that films never come up with decent original scores anymore (its a sign of our civilization declining along with the rest of music culture sucking ass too). Also there was a lack of sexual fantasy, and the women on the show were not hot enough.

Overall. this show still remains very intriguing. It has some great cinematography, plus some top notch acting. I hope that it is able to maintain a focus on sex, survival, social programming, and epistemology. While the series is a bit of a mixed bag so far, the series is very compelling in the regard that it is highly focused on the dark sides of human nature, as well as the downsides of capitalism- greed and power. And that individuality and empathy are not valued in a futuristic society. Indeed, humanity itself is not valued in a futuristic society either, according to Westworld. The humanity of the robots in the park, and the conscience of the tourists are all subverted to a new technological order. –Steve

west1poster for the old film

Trump Should Ban CNN and MSNBC


Coverage of this election has been so slanted, that Trump and his team should permanently refuse to do interviews or debates with heavily left-wing biased channels. Let the liberal media lap up the milk from their own crappy leaders. Good right wing leaders and their surrogates have no business appearing on enemy channels. Doing so supports the viewership of these less-than-worthless liberal media outlets. It also funds advertising revenue which supports their left wing venomous propaganda. The time has come for right wing leaders to say NO! to doing interviews and debates for CNN and MSNBC. Let their stations rot in the hell of a miserable left wing cesspool… One final suggestion – confront every moderator and reporter with the simple question of who they will vote for. Let them stop hiding their bias. Call them out on it DIRECTLY!!! –Steve

Myth: Princes and Princessess

princessMattel pic

There are numerous problems with modern romance. Economics is one of them. Dating and rents have climbed to record levels in much of the US due to bubbles. There is a lack of housing supply due to government red tape. So these days the idea that men should be chivalrous and pay for all the dates is a fallacy. We live in a hard economic era, with anemic economic growth globally. There is very little economic growth. And productivity growth is negative, which is what causes wage growth. Therefor, wages are stagnant.

Meanwhile the cost of a shitty movie, a coke, and a popcorn with some chick has gone astronomical. And they always order the most expensive thing possible wherever you take them. They are picky and fussy. If they don’t like coffee, then instead of ordering coffee at Starbucks they order some 10 dollar frappuchino type thing which is basically whipped cream but for 10 dollars. Its not even coffee.

For a modern relationship to work in this hard era there must be shared sacrifices. There is a social media movement for men to reassert their right to economic self-preservation. They are avoiding relationships with leeches.

Ayn Rand would have been proud of this movement. She argued that individuals have self-worth, and are not intended to be sacrificial lambs to the altar of others. And you may think Jesus argued the opposite, since his apostles died as martyrs, but the truth is that he asked his apostles to drop everything they were doing, leave their family ( including their wives), and follow him. Sounds drastic – but isn’t that what your employer asks you to do everyday? There is always one thing in common. Whether its your women, your church , or your government- they will all keep asking you for MORE and MORE and MORE and MORE. At some point you need to realize that you need to protect yourself financially from all of these forms of soft tyranny. Because if you don’t save yourself, and you end up on the streets or broke  , there are much fewer social safety net programs to help men than there are for women (especially women with kids), as well as more programs for foreigners than for natives. And there will be little sympathy for you. See this well spoken homeless man’s blog: pic

Much of American culture reinforces the stereotype that women are social victims, and that they need to be “saved” by a man (Captain Save A Ho style). And the other half of American culture is feminist and says women do not need men at all. Either of these perspectives screws men over. Feminism says men are unnecessary, and that men victimize women generally speaking. This encourages women to take men for granted and to treat men like dirt. (As a veteran I have personally been stabbed with my own broken bong shard by a wild-eyed lover who was so irate she rammed her own head through the wall in a takedown attempt. I received an award for this.)

And the other, more old fashion Disney-Barbie-Mattel point of view seems to be that that men are princes that should save women from their economic and basic unhappiness in life. That’s unrealistic. It basically sets women up as financial leeches against men. And the legal system does the nail in the coffin with divorce court.

Anyway you look at it women have rigged the game so that men lose.

The first step towards a healthy peace treaty in the battle of the sexes is that we all need to come to agreement on one or two key things. Namely, there must be shared sacrifice in relations between men and women. And that there are NO legitimate “princes and princesses anymore”. A healthy first step in this direction is the defeat of Hilary Clinton , who arose to power as the “wife of so-and-so” and elect Trump for now. Ultimately, the goal should be a sense of shared responsibility and sacrifice in relationships and society, instead of “what have you done for me lately?” Someday hopefully a plumber and his hardworking or more traditional blue collar wife will be able to reach the highest offices in this land. For now, Trump will have to do.

princess2Mattel pic


Threesome – Step by Step


You may think the hardest part of having a threesome is finding the perfect person to join in your couple’s sex life, but it’s even harder to handle all the emotions involved, namely jealousy and insecurity. So what’s the best way to go about it?

First, know the reason. You need to figure out as a couple why you want to try having a threesome. Is this his fantasy, or hers, or something you’ve both wanted to try together? Are you pushing your own limits to explore who you are sexually? Do you want to add a new, maybe bisexual, dimension to sex? Are you easing into the concept of sharing your partner or having group sex? Is this a purely physical/sexual experience, or a gateway to a ménage à trois/polyamory relationship? Whatever your reason, be aware that it won’t save a troubled relationship, as it invites hurt feelings, can do irreparable damage to a couple’s intimacy, and potentially leads to a love triangle that could tear the couple apart. Be sure you both want to do it. A threesome requires a high level of openness and trust to work.

Second, find someone suitable. Decide whether to choose from your close friends (such as sorority sisters you’ve already partied naked with), acquaintances (they’re probably sane, STD-free, approachable, and not a great loss if it doesn’t work out), or a total stranger (easier to find online, for a one-time thing, or to keep private from your social network), but not exes (due to their emotional baggage). Whether you pick another female or another male, make sure you both find her/him attractive, or it could hurt your sexual performance and pleasure. If they’re too attractive, you might need to deal with your own insecurities first. To entice the third person, you might need to coyly ask them out to put them in the mood. Make sure they’re ready, willing, and able to have sex with you as a couple, and you’re not making them jump through hoops or suffer delays as you vet them together, or they will lose patience and not take you seriously, and the threesome fantasy will not become a reality.

Third, set the ground rules and boundaries. Make sure all three of you provide input and come to an agreement on everything. This isn’t just for physical safety (doing it at a hotel for comfort and privacy, using separate condoms for various sex pairings) but also to protect your emotional well-being (communicating what you’re not okay with, who can/can’t kiss and touch, who can/can’t penetrate whom and where orally/vaginally/anally, and what three-way sex positions will make you feel left out). Figure out all the nitty-gritty details, any uncomfortable scenarios that could arise, and how to resolve them. Take this opportunity to imagine and describe all the wild positions and sexy things you can do with three bodies instead of just two. The more you discuss and plan beforehand, the more ready and eager you’ll be, and the more you’ll get out of this experience. If you’d rather be totally spontaneous, you risk unnecessarily offending someone, showing up with no idea what you should do with yourself, and having regrets later. To prevent any confusion, also plan how it should end, like taking a cab home afterward (to mark the end of the shared physical experience, so it’s not weird when you wake up). Figure out if the threesome should be a one-time thing or potentially ongoing.

Fourth, meet and progressively increase sexual tension. It might be easier to break the ice at a café or a lounge, with just one person of the couple initially meeting the third person, then flirting and complimenting them. This way the third person can feel safe in public, not feel like a third wheel, and can quickly build rapport one-on-one. If their chemistry together is good, the other person of the couple can join, and the first person of the couple can facilitate their getting to know each other, keeping the tone upbeat and humorous with light teasing. Everyone should divide their attention with the other two, with a focus on the less enthusiastic person, so nobody feels left out. From chatting, gradually increase skin contact and touching, like: stroking their arm, patting their shoulder, combing strands of hair off their face and tucking it behind their ear, and hugging. When everyone is physically comfortable with each other, and sexual tension is getting unbearable, they should proceed to a private room with a bed. Savor the foreplay. Circle each other, hold hands, gently but firmly rub up on each other, slowly undress each other, and give each other massages.

Fifth, maintain intimacy with your partner while having sex. The greatest danger in a threesome (after the physical ones of pregnancy and STDs) is jealousy and insecurity. A couple just focuses on each other with their full body, mind, and feelings. An orgy is a confusing tangle of body parts experiencing simultaneous sex from everywhere from anyone. But a threesome uniquely challenges intimacy in the constant threat of making one feel less desired or left out as the third wheel, so be attentive to both. Don’t let the novelty of a new third person get you carried away. You need to reassure your partner that she is still your focus, and this is all just a physical experience, not a relationship with the third. You don’t have to always be working on both people like in a game of Twister, but frequently touch or gaze at your partner. Be creative and spontaneous within the group’s guidelines, and always ask first if you want to try something they didn’t ask for so you have continual affirmative consent. If anyone’s ever uncomfortable and wants to stop, everyone should stop, and not rudely continue without them.

Sixth, follow up. Message the third participant the next day, so they don’t feel used and ignored but rather valued as an integral part of your threesome experience. You can decide whether to see each other again or just keep it a one-time thing (you’re not dating, after all). Hopefully everyone had an exhilarating, stimulating, mind-blowing experience that affirms your vibrant sex life together.

Stay tuned for the next article on threesome sex positions.



The Lobster Crushes Social Coercion


Every once in a while you come across a movie that connects with you. It may not make sense or be conventionally “good,” but it stays with you. “The Lobster” is such a film. It is about a futuristic society where people are given 45 days to find a mate, or they will be turned into the animal of their choice. It takes place in a hotel that is a dystopian nightmare of desperate single people and cheerless sex. Colin Farrell plays the main character, who will turn into a lobster if he can’t find a mate, and Rachel Weisz plays the woman he becomes involved with. The whole goal of the society in this film is to have men obey women’s every command, and for couples to get along at all costs. Women are also spiritually demeaned by their role as Master. And are also subject to being turned to an animal if they do not find a suitable mate, just like the men.

How do I even classify this film? It could be a comedy, a science fiction film, or an allegory for our current dating society. For example, characters are paired together as “perfect for each other” because they both have nosebleeds. One character hits his nose against the side of the pool to make it bleed, in order to have something in common with a female character whose nose also bleeds. Kind of how people act fake to get married to rich people ( for survival). So basically people are getting hitched with not that much in common, and that’s unfortunate. And society sets up institutions regarding kids, school , church , etc that reaffirm this unnatural state.

What makes people compatible anyway? I think “The Lobster” is about how you can’t force love or attraction, and it is about how conformity and political correctness damage our chances of being ourselves. And this film says you are better off by yourself, not having to worry about compatibility. But the problem is you will get stigmatized and scarred as a masturbating loser if you don’t cow-tow to feminist control. Like in this film, when you get caught masturbating they burn your hand in a toaster.

People are very cruel to each other in general in this film. They shoot you with a tranquilizer dart of you don’t follow every command. So it has a dystopian 1984 like element to it. And the plot does develop further, as there are rebels and spies involved (who live in the forest). Colin Farrell gave a most excellent performance here, his dead-pan humor was of the highest order. This is very likely to become a cult classic, as it managed to gross $15 million worldwide on a budget of $5 million. If you enjoyed Nicholas Cage’s Wicker Man ( which was highly entertaining anti feminist cinema) – then you will REALLY enjoy the Lobster. This film sounds wacko but it’s not. Its actually closer to reality than one would like to admit. –CoolAC & Steve

The Pearl Shows Human Nature


So in school I was assigned to read Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men. And the schools I went to were only an hour from where Steinbeck lived and wrote most of his early works. But we never took afield trip out there. Those books aren’t as good, or as poignant as The Pearl.

In the Pearl, the main character Kino dives for pearls for a living, and lives a modest lower class agricultural lifestyle. One day he dives and retrieves the largest pearl ever known. His child had also recently fallen ill. Rumors spread, and the whole town (including the baby’s doctor) soon is conniving to either screw him over- or to steal it from him outright. His wife Juanita warns him that all this could happen. But Kino’s pride as a man, combined with his personal ambitions doom him completely. Juana fatalistically accepts Kino’s flawed decisions out of an understanding of the psychology of prideful men (a clear indication this book was written before the feminist movement). And in the end, many characters suffer ill fates.


If you ever saw the cult film with Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny called The Raputure, then you will recognize the symbol of the pearl in the cult members visions and also as tattooed on one of the members’ back in the film. Pearls in American culture are in a modern tradition tending to represent an ominous forewarning of personal or societal apocalypse. Personally I have a pearl memento from my baptism when I was 14.

This book made me ask myself hard questions. Many authors like Nassim Taleb (in his book Black Swans) argue that one should always take advantage off opportunities to profit aggressively (since good opportunities are deemed rare). Ayn Rand would also argue to be greedy and not share the proceeds with the community, since humans are not sacrificial lambs, but rather self-responsible individuals. But in this book, which is a fairly realistic scenario, the main character would have done better to do neither of those actions. Instead, had Kino shared the proceeds with his community, then the community would not have had as much incentive to rob/maim him. And had Kino took the first (lesser) payment offer for the pearl and been modest, instead of turning down the offer to seek more money for it – then he would have been all the better for it.

As we move towards the future with sexbots, maybe society should consider whether these could be benefit of all, instead of simply for the wealthy and the perverted. And perhaps we should also not think of the sexbots as a total cure-all for headaches and arguments men and women suffer from each other. Its best for society to keep an open mind towards them, and try to find a way to use them as a positive tool and a force for peace and happiness in the world. – “Deplorable” Steve

A Tale of Two Kaps

In case you didn’t know already, the CIA has taken to using body doubles lately, as well as forcing people like Bruce Jenner and Richard Simmons to have sex changes. Case in point is Hilary Clinton, who either collapsed or was arrested and thrown in a black van at the 911 memorial – only to reappear 35 pounds lighter and with a much skinnier neck and 15 years younger ( after having ducked into Chelsea’s apartment for a few hours). This same secret government program has apparently targeted Colin Kaepernick of the 49ers with body doubles and mind control experiments as part of a conspiracy to modify social behaviors of the public by manipulating them through their idols.

hilary (pic from

Many are saying that the DNC has a professional Hilary impersonator on the payroll, and that she is the double in the pic above:

But I now believe there are two doubles and one actual Hilary (who may being projected as a hologram). And the pro impersonator of Hilary was not the same one who emerged from the apartment after the 911 feinting spell. The pro impersonator (Teresa Barnwell) looks like a more white trash version of Hilary , and is too squat to be the same woman as the Ellen Degenerous skinny version picture above.


hillary-clinton-twin-woman-earns-thousands-impersonating-presidential-candidate Teresa Barnwell photo -radaronline

Here is the bottom line: The healthy troll like lady we are seeing most of the time is Barnwell. When the actual Hilary shows up (like at 911 memorial) she looks also squat , but sick and pale. Then after Hilary appears sick – they recoup her image with the thinner, younger, less wrinkled “Ellen” version lookalike – (since Ellen is the most popular dyke in the land a clone of her polls well). And sometimes the actual sick Hilary is hologrammed into public speeches (Obi-Wan Kanobi style where her image flickers but the background does not):

The reason for that is that’s the only way she can personally appear instead of her doubles and use Hollywood tricks to not appear sick and pale, cross eyed, and too weak to climb three stairs.

Now that brings us to Kaepernick, of the SF 49ers, converting from Judaism to Islam (overnight), growing a giant Fletch-like Afro, and refusing to stand for the National Anthem. He also is looking crazy eyed (one eye sideways)kap before

fletch after (notice the left eye wandering)

hilary2 you see the same eye anomaly here

Many others also noticed her eyes were out of whack yesterday:

You have many other American stars being subjected to CIA mind control and social conditioning (namely anyone who was famous for wearing short-shorts in the 80s is now subject to rebranding). Look at his new identity after having spent 3 years in his mansion reportedly under the watch of the men in black, and notice he still wears a beard and maintains a THIRD identity (his old self , his new woman self, and his new trucker self):

simmons simmons2 -(dailymail)simmons3

These celebs and politicians are easy to blackmail and force identity changes on, or to whack and replace with a double. Bruce Jenner killed someone with his car after the sex change :

Its easy to see how the CIA can target irresponsible people or people with dark secrets and then use threats of legal prosecution if they do not comply with their new assigned identity, or if they do not pay back their debts. In Kaps case there was a pseudo -rape case against him that was dropped for instance. So you can assume there were other instances which were blackmail-able or where they could coerce him based on dirt they have on him. And some of these other guys like Simmons or Jenner probably had illegal porn on their hard-drive or some other low-life vulnerabilities to being manipulated by a 3rd party. -“Deplorable” Steve